speedyj1992 Wrote:I think you're taking the point I made and making it about something else, because that's not what I'm trying to get at - let's use "Doctor Who" as a springboard to form an example of what I'm trying to get at because of your screenname, and because I'm a nerd and understand things based on nerdy comparisons best because it makes me more engaged (plus, this will be more fun to write this way).
Your typical DW episode is usually a (clever) variation on the Doctor and his companion (soon going to be "her", and I'm totally down with Jodie Whittaker, even if she's not ginger) coming to a place or time, learning a bit about it, seeing there's something wrong based on what they know, and then trying to save people. The Doctor will often say things such as, "No, this can't have happened like this" because of his extensive knowledge - he doesn't assume that something hasn't or has happened because of how it looks, but based on knowledge. Our knowledge of the universe's complexity seems to increase all the time, for the better in my opinion, and the more complicated it is, the more likely it is that it wasn't by chance. Because all these particles had to form in order for us to get really complex planets and LIFE all on its own, and we just don't se that happening today - a tornado can't form a Boeing 737 by chance even if it went through a bunch of junkyards with all the parts.
I bolded the parts of your analogy that illustrate its ineptness. The Doctor bases his conclusions, on what he knows, not on appearances. That's the opposite of what you're doing. That chance can't account for complexity is not only an unsupported assertion it's contrary to observation. Chaos is more complex than order, and includes order. Chaos without any order would itself be a form of order that would have to be explained by an outside factor (chaos without any order is too consistent to be completely chaotic).
Life is based on organic chemistry not junk, and organic molecules behave very differently from pieces of junk. One of their defining characteristics is the capacity to spontaneously form complex polymers under certain conditions readily found in nature.
Why were you an atheist, anyway? I'd wager you didn't think your way into that position.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
